Key result
Automated carotid IMT and IMTV measurements using AutoEdge showed high agreement with manual tracing and no statistical difference in IMTV values (P>0.7).
Why the study?
Does an automated system (AutoEdge) provide comparable carotid IMT and IMTV measurements to manual tracing in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients?
Observational (n=142)
Does an automated system (AutoEdge) provide comparable carotid IMT and IMTV measurements to manual tracing in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients?
p-value: p=> 0.7
Automated measurement of carotid IMT and IMTV using AutoEdge software is highly comparable to manual tracing and demonstrates higher IMTV in symptomatic cerebrovascular patients.
Automated carotid IMT/IMTV assessment may be interchangeable with manual tracing; leaves open prospective validation for cerebrovascular risk stratification.
The carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) is a validated marker of cerebrovascular disease risk. This paper presents a new parameter, the IMT variability (IMTV), and compares it between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients taken from a cohort of Italian population. One hundred forty-two patients were analyzed (age 59 ± 112 years, 59% males), 42 of these patients suffered from TIA or minor stroke. The lumen-intima (LI) and media-adventitia (MA) interfaces of the far wall were manually traced by a Reader. We also used a computer-based automated system (called AutoEdge) to obtain the LI/MA interfaces. The LI/MA interfaces were used to measure the IMT and the IMTV along the distal wall of the common carotid artery. Wilcoxon and Pearson correlation analyses were performed. The agreement between the Reader's IMT and the AutoEdge IMT values was 98.7% for the symptomatic (0.83 ± 0.44 mm for Reader, 0.82 ± 0.35 mm for AutoEdge) and 94.9% for the asymptomatic patients (0.78 ± 0.45 mm for Reader, 0.74 ± 0.30 mm for AutoEdge). Correlation was 65% for symptomatic and 68% for asymptomatic patients, respectively. The IMT measured using AutoEdge was 1.2% lower compared to manual measurements in symptomatic population, while 5.12% lower in asymptomatic. The IMTV was 11% higher in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic when using manual delineations, 8% higher when using AutoEdge. There was no statistical difference between the manual and automated IMTV measurements (Wilcoxon signed rank, P > 0.7). We conclude that the IMT and IMTV values were very similar between Reader and AutoEdge software when studying symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in Italian population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saba et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Cerebrovascular disease risk (n=142). Computer-based automated system (AutoEdge) vs. Manual tracing (Reader) was evaluated on Difference between manual and automated IMTV measurements (p=> 0.7). Automated carotid IMT and IMTV measurements using AutoEdge showed high agreement with manual tracing and no statistical difference in IMTV values (P>0.7).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: